Thread: A question on the constitution

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Well we have tried the "Let them have it all back" after we invest $Billions$ in propping them up system a couple of times now and failed

I think it stats by figuring out what's your objective and if it's even achievable by war; secondly with the potential consequences and whether they would create far bigger problem than the one you're trying to solve.
For example the war in Afganistan was to destroy Bin Laden's organization - utter failure. In Iraq it was about getting rid of that country's WMD's.

Perhaps the lesson for US is that a 'war on terror' is unwinnable, at least not in the way of conan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAdzBaPDmJk

Originally Posted by gssixgun

So I vote for the "Let's actually invade and take over everything" routine and give it back after we take all the oil it takes to pay us back for our costs, and if they want our help aft

That sounds like doubling down on what keeps failing. Just think about it - the dictators in these countries hold them together by terrorizing the people and when the government oppression is weakened you get violence and chaos. What would US do differently when it's in charge?
Colonialism ended over half a century ago, do you really think US can do better than the past failures and build a colonial empire that will work? What would you do differently from England, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy... ?